Garrett Goebel wrote:
> As a programming language, it is a quick and dirty scripting tool... "shell
> scripting on steroids". Using it for larger projects with a single
> implementor requires experience and wisdom. Using Perl for a large project
> with multiple-coders adds the requirement for discipline. The mantras for
> wisdom and discipline are there... but you actually have to go looking for
> them.
So how exactly is that different to any other language? Some of the
biggest screw-ups I have ever had the misfortune to work on were written
in C++ (which IMHO is an abominable language - more dark corners and
burning pits than hell itself).
> I'd don't think Perl will really be accepted as a real programming language
> until it has a formal specification.
Oh goody - I propose we produce a full mathematically verified formal
specification before we go any further. What is it be be - Z or VDM?
Mmmm - just *think* of all that lovely predicate calculus ;-)
I'm being flippant, but really if you think that is in line with the
Perl ethos I think you are misguided. My understanding of Larry's
design goal is that perl should be more akin to a natural language than
to a formally specifiable one. Quite frankly I don't give a hoot for
the opinions of the anally retentive language lawyers. What constitutes
a 'real' programming language? There are at least as many definitions
as there are people prepared to voice an opinion. I want a language
that makes my life easy, rather than one that makes the compiler writers
life easy. Perl is about the best fit I have found so far. For
something that is not a 'real' programming language it seems to have
been remarkably successful so far.
Alan Burlison
